Gawddawggonnit wrote: » Making a mix while typing this... 11.5 kgdm maize silage. 6 kgdm lucerne. 4 kgdm clover silage. 3 kgdm 81 dmd grass silage. 1 kg soya. 1.5 kg barley. 60gms osr haulm. 60 gms salt. 125gms minerals. 70 gms urea. 50 gms bicarbonate. Lol, looks complicated when typed up!
Gawddawggonnit wrote: » blackdog1 wrote: » What are you feeding them atm Dawg? Making a mix while typing this... 11.5 kgdm maize silage. 6 kgdm lucerne. 4 kgdm clover silage. 3 kgdm 81 dmd grass silage. 1 kg soya. 1.5 kg barley. 60gms osr haulm. 60 gms salt. 125gms minerals. 70 gms urea. 50 gms bicarbonate. Lol, looks complicated when typed up!
blackdog1 wrote: » What are you feeding them atm Dawg?
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » Mooooo wrote: » Why can't farm debt be included in the cop? Fact is a lot of lads probably have put out more milk just by being more efficient on existing land anything extra is likely to come from borrowings. As I said earlier leave it out if you want to compare farms within your group o Just on variable costs or whatever but putting out a cop without everything in it is fooling no-one only playing into the hands of processors and supermarkets. My borrowings last year cost me over 6 c/l and because of tb now it's up to 8c, so you can see why it gets annoying when your told produce for 20cent That's the rub, though. Farm debt varies widely and the COP used by Teagasc is a comparison of common costs, not all costs. So two farms can compare their costs against each other without different drawings and loan repayments skewing costs in favour of a farmer with no loans and low drawings. Teagasc need to be brought up on this and soon. Milk price- ProfitMonitor COP does not equal profit.
Mooooo wrote: » Why can't farm debt be included in the cop? Fact is a lot of lads probably have put out more milk just by being more efficient on existing land anything extra is likely to come from borrowings. As I said earlier leave it out if you want to compare farms within your group o Just on variable costs or whatever but putting out a cop without everything in it is fooling no-one only playing into the hands of processors and supermarkets. My borrowings last year cost me over 6 c/l and because of tb now it's up to 8c, so you can see why it gets annoying when your told produce for 20cent
minktrapper wrote: » Any of ye think that profit monitors should not be submitted to teagasc as there is way too much information on it and milk producers can be manipulated. All that info is being used by a lot more people than dairy farmers.
freedominacup wrote: » I pat myself on the back if I get 15-16kg forage into mine.
trixi2011 wrote: » Could you explain the inclusion of urea in the mix . Was going to try it here in the back end as protein prices were quike high and I had a 13% but bought on contract price for the year .Bottled it in the end tho as could find anyone who was feeding for information on rates and what to look out for etc
Injuryprone wrote: » I'm not sure I'm reading the right article or not, but am I right in saying that he's gone from 72 cows to 320 without spending anything on housing. How is he complying with nitrates? Can't imagine the farms were stocked anywhere near as intensely in the previous regime. I went to a Teagasc meeting last week in mallow on the new nitrates derogation rules. They kept banging on and on about getting slurry storage nailed down properly for next year, so much so that it must be very common for intensive farmers to be without the required storage. But I thought you had to have it all sorted to get the derogation in the first place. Tbh I was confused and haven't talked to my advisor since to ask him.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » I've no problems with my figures going in to Teagasc for the PM as they are the ones producing the PM figures for us to compare our figures in the discussion group. But I have a lot of difficulty with those figures being leveraged to produce misleading headline figures which the data they are given is being used for. I'm kind of on the fence this year about continuing in the DG partly because of this.
Gawddawggonnit wrote: » I only have a small smattering of Teagasc(ese) and Gov speak, but I’ll give it a shot... Right lads, we’re lucky that we nailed down another nitrates derogation even when it’s common knowledge that we’re wrecking the environment...so, to keep insane milk production (to infinity!) we’ll HAVE to make a little effort, or at least be seen to make an effort!! How far off is that translation?
K.G. wrote: » Lads ye are getting yer knickers in atwist over nothing.no buyer looks at the cost of producing the product and couldnt give a damn if you are loosing money producing it,they only want to know if they can get it cheaper somewhere else.the only dangers is fellas with no calculaters looking at them and thinking they do the same.everyone has do their own sums.
alps wrote: » It's our own fault figures are misused, we need to be definitive in our instruction, that the figures are only used for the purpose for which you submit them..
mahoney_j wrote: » In la la land if you think published pm figures aren’t been used against us
minktrapper wrote: » I was told by a friend of mine that was on a farm walk in England. The farm had over 300 cows. The dairy gave him an extra 2p a gallon ( or something close to it) to see his cost of production. They got a completely separate set of accounts for this purpose. One thing is for certain. All census data/surveys are being used for the manipulation of everyone. Information makes the world go round not money. They might not look at the cost of production in the short term but in the long term the information can be used to lever farmers. Much like the amount of information is available on cattle numbers. Cattle ages etc.. They need the product to stay in business but at the cheapest price they can get it. With all the extra cows on farms today are dairy farmers any better off than when they were milking 30 cows 30 years ago?
mahoney_j wrote: » I opted out cause of it in my Tegasc group but was allowed continue in group .good discussion group so worth staying in but point blank refuse profit monitor
Gawddawggonnit wrote: » I thought you have hols?
Snowfire wrote: » I presume you don’t have access to the pm figures from your group so, when your not prepared to give yours.?
K.G. wrote: » There is no business that is operati ng at the same level of productivity as it was 30 years ago i cant remember where i saw it but i read somewhere that productivity should double every ten years which is close enough to 100cows which is comparable
Water John wrote: » There are a number of 'laws', which are actually indicative of what is happening the evolution of a specific industry eg Moore's Law in computers. So KG, you'll be milking 400 cows, on your own, in 20 years?
Bo dearg wrote: » Read an article in journal few weeks back about sweeden i think or switzerland. 48 cows and followers managed by man his father and one full time employee. I know its not comparable to eu farming but sounds better than teagasc model of one man manageing 120 cows with part time help in the spring. I wonder sometimes have the big co-ops been steering teagasc into getting us to produce more for less just to turn into a low value commodity for them to sell with their guaranteed matgin built in
mahoney_j wrote: » Very little do pm so we don’t actually use it ,great group not interested in our individual financial performance as it’s ourcown business and so many different variables at play ,actively interested in how we grow more grass ,manage land ,cows etc,that’s what’s important and makes us money
K.G. wrote: » How.
Snowfire wrote: » Yeah same as my group, but it’s still a worthwhile exercise to compare the high input/ high output v the lows for different years. No one is going to change their whole system based on their neighbours figures, but one session in January discussing pm is always part of ours.
mahoney_j wrote: » I do one some years don’t know why as I don’t reallt see benefit in its current form ,my full accounts with warts and all is my concern
